On Charisma

I have been fascinated with people with charisma.
The power they have to make people follow them with a level of compliance I could not understand.

How did Hitler lead a whole country to its destruction? I watch movies about him and wonder how come people did not challenge him. There was an attempt on his life, which failed, but by and large his generals and subordinates followed him blindly.

Is it the German culture of accepting authority at all costs?

But what about Stalin?

He was followed too without question and when he died many people actually committed suicide. They could not believe they could live normal life without him.

Is it again the Russian culture of subordinating oneself to authority?

In my work as a consultant I met leaders who led organizations in a culture which was not authoritarian and they had the same charismatic power.

So what is it?

What gives those people the power over others?

What is the source of that charisma?

I admit I have no time to do library search and find out what different social scientists say is the source of charisma.

But I had an insight this week I want to share with you.

I am now working with a leader of a company who overpowers even me. I do not yield easily to being overpowered.

In my whole life I can count on one hand the people who in their presence I lose all power and feel spell bound.

What is going on?

Here is my insight.

These people are possessed by an idea, a vision, that overpowers them.

They are not the masters of their actions but “OF” their decisions. They are the slaves of something bigger that overpowers them.

They are a vehicle for delivering what they believe in totally, hundred percent, to the point that they cannot stand anything to block them from carrying out that mission.

Being possessed by the vision, something bigger than themselves, willing to sacrifice their own life for it, makes them very powerful. And that power radiates from them and to those around them who cannot resist the power they are experiencing.

Come to think of it. If I am right, the charismatic leader is not a master. He or she is a slave of an idea, of an ideology, of a vision, that enslaves them and they are a carrier, a vehicle of transmitting that idea.

thanks for sharing your thoughts on this fascinating subject. I think you’ve captured the essence of what charisma is. Those powerful leaders manage to lead others by their complete congruence, brought about by their conviction that their path is the right one. This may be for good or bad. These people are congruent, they show little inner conflicts or hesitation. They give certainty to others and I think in evolutionary terms people are always looking for a leader that can protect them from threats to survival – whatever those threats (real or imagined) may be. Once someone has achieved a degree of leadership many other factors come into play such as social validation. People see that the leader has a following and this confirms to them that their belief in the leader is correct. People also use all kinds of cognitive biases to justify their belief in the leader even in the face of behaviour that they do not agree with. This is to maintain a sense of mental and emotional stability as opposed to dissonance, which is uncomfortable and in evolutionary terms potentially dangerous and energy sapping. At the heart of all this though I do believe it is the power of the idea or message that the leader is giving that maintains people’s loyalty. As long as that message remains congruent. People are looking for congruency, completeness, certainty, answers….as soon as holes appear in the message, or too many in the leader so they can no longer be justified, then the leadership/charisma is lost.

Basically you are right, the charismatic people know what to do (generally) and why, for themselves and for others also.
They are the slaves of ideas, that is correct. My experience is that in addition to be addicted to idea, I also have general idea that I could do some complex things in much better way that I did before, and better than majority of other people. This looks like an addition to challenge which I create for myself.
I will be doing more thinking about that, thank you for making me thinking ! This possession to challenge rules my life and lifes of other people also.

Good point Ichak,
I think we must add the “follower/s'” NEEDS at that specific situation to the Charisma Equation.
Hitler could need BE in Germany today. People are fat and content, they have no physical and or emotional need as they did in the early and late 30th and during the war. People need to be in a a SITUATION (pain, needs, wants, dissatisfaction etc) where the idea of the leader is more than inspiring them hence they follow with body, mind and heart. It can be in sport, in religion and in the military.
You were the Charismatic Leader for me in 1994 when I joined Adizes as all the ingridents mentioned above were present in some way or other, and yes, the Charismatic Leader must have this ability to talk, articulate and convince with compelling, catchy passion.
I love the topic, and I love you.
Your humble student,
Ilan

I thank you for this insight, I had never thought of connecting ”who make people slaves” witch ”who is slave of an idea”. Il would just like to add this idea has to generate an intense emotion so that the charisma can exist. So, it’s not only an intellectual concept, but also an emotional trauma. I don’t know how How these two elements – the intellectual et the emotional – harmonize to arrest all the personality of a person.But I think I think that both are necessary to produce some charisma.
I wish you a good day and thank you for all that you bring me
Dominque Racine

My dear Professor, I do not know what he done to you, but it seems to me that you are just another victim of the charisma! You are manipulated as many others! Real intellectuals can not be good charismatic leaders since they confront concepts, offer choice to the followers and ask them to take risk. On the other hand, people are not ready and not willing to accept that their destiny is in their own hands and this creates a fertile soil for charismatic leaders of various types and shapes, providers of instant comfort and escape from the challenges of the reality.

The charismatic leader uses simple language, has clear cut between black and white, the enemy and the foe, ours and theirs, partly because it fits with his own value system. Despite the façade, a probe behind him will prove that he is fully subordinated to the people or power centers that he considers that control him, from Supernatural, like the God up to some real political power centers here on the Earth. Charismatic leader is in fact passive-aggressive character! He lacks the intelligence needed to grab the power and to hold it and is dependent to smart, not always ethical, but always greedy groups of interest that pull the strings!

I agree sir!….No doubt, all (such) leaders are definitely enslaved by an idea irresistibly….But I still don’t understand why not all equally enslaved by an idea become leaders…..that is still intriguing to me….

You say, that a charismatic person is a slave of an idea and a vehicle of transmitting it.

What if a person with charisma is only a “channel” to an idea, which overpowers them and people around them? In this case, who or what is on the other end of this “channel”? And where does all this energy, that charismatic people literally “radiate”, comes from?

Reminds me of the discussion if an individual is an open or a closed system…

Good Morning,
I have often wondered how leaders can get followers to be completely committed to their ideas through their charisma. It seems to me that we see in that leader something we want in ourselves and feel that kinship which allows us to not see what the truth is. Bill Clinton is a great example of that charisma that allowed him to go unskathed even though his hand was on the bible, saying he never had sex with that girl. Even to this day people see in him that perfect leader role. I think he was a good leader but would lie to save his own skin and that is when I lost all faith in him.

I too have sensed that power over me when talking with certain people. I find myself believing in him/her beyond the doubt. Maybe that is why we want to believe in that person. It is a part of us we want to believe in that we could never reach??
Jim

One person I’ve know had great charisma. He was very hadnsome (looked like a movie star) and was a presenting analyst for a consulting company in which he owned a significant share. He would take information that was gathered during the course of an analysis and weave it into a story that was central to his presentation. It was a rare occurance when he did not sell a project.

Personally, I loved to work with him. It was a great experience to see how he presented a company’s “story” to its leaders.

I think his charisma came from his looks, his confident personality, his ability to tell a story, and perhaps even the huge financial rewards that came with his success. Was the money the vision that overpowered him as Dr. Adizes suggests? I think it was a combination of these attributes.

That people are charismatic because they are overpowered by a vision is a great insight.

But then I think; I have met people I found charismatic that were not driven by a vision or idea. They had no interest in even influencing other people with anything. They were charismatic for other reasons; a gift, kindness, empathy, intellect or even just a special look.

Maybe we talk about different “charisma” but I believe you can be charismatic without being overwhelming.

Was Hitler charismatic? And was his power based on his charisma? I don’t know but I believe he was “borderline” obsessed with a desire to be accepted/recognised – much more than from the beginning having an actual vision.

The same with Stalin; he had no vision about a communist society, he was not a communist, don’t even think he understood what Marxism was, he couldn’t care less; he was totally obsessed with power and dominance. He was 100% insensitive to other peoples suffering.

I have met a couple of the likes of Hitler and Stalin; Kim Il Sung (the father of the just deceased North Korean leader) and Fidel Castro. When I say met, I actually met and talked with them (and maybe I should say I was always an anti-communist!).

I found no one of the two to be charismatic. To the contrary!! They did not impress me! Everyone told me about Fidel Castro’s charisma and brilliant mind. I believe that sometimes a person’s charisma is created by the story about their charisma so when we meet them we feel the charisma because we feel small and humble. I did not feel or see the charisma that “everybody” talked about. Maybe because I passionately despised their politics?! They were leaders with “absolute power”, like Hitler and Stalin, and I believe they built their reign on the same foundation; cruelty, obsession to dominate, no empathy and a strong political power play ability/talent. But not on any vision!

I am very glad that you raised-up the importance of vision and consequently the importance of intrinsic rewards. As history shows and as you point out, people are willing to die for causes they rightly or wrongly believe in.

In my experience working with for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, I have seen how a charismatic leader can integrate the multiple interests and personalities of paid employees and pro-bono members.

Rather than calling it an idea, I suggest we call it a meme, because it has the ability to evolve, expand and take-over other minds in an exponential fashion.

Your comments also support the position of given Vision an important and deserved place within strategic planning, since without it there would be no sense of direction and we would miss the intense energy it arises.

It’s never a good idea to reduce down historic figures to a few sentences without the complete historical perspective. After the Treaty of Versailles post WWI it was not the English speaking peoples who were starving on the streets. The US had insisted on abolishing the German monarchy. The country had, under President Wilson, enormous reparations payments that contrary to Churchill’s repeated requests were to be made from the allies and Germany to the US in cash. Churchill wanted the exchange of goods and services. This would have saved the world from WWII. The ‘charisma’ that you speak of regarding Hitler was a force for motivation that tapped into the German psyche and stepped neatly into the void left by the abolition of the German monarchy. The country began to rise up and people could eat again. Russia had seen this themselves and millions starved to death as well. Another void had been created after WWI: bolshevism vs fascism. Merely tools to control or box in countries and as I surmise protect the nationalism from US quasi religious imperialism and wealth. The US did it again WWII. The last one in such as the US gets the spoils of war. Win-win for the US because if you did your research you’d find that post WWI the US had heavy investments in Germany, they had relocated the International Bank of Settlements to Basel in Switzerland to be headed by the US (and which I surmise was as well a back channel for re-investment/ownership in Germany by the US). Many many factors outside of the ‘charisma’ factor you simplified. Stalin was a clever guy. The genocidal mentality is/was present in the US as well: the demise of the American Native Indian, African slavery, prejudice against minorities. It just had a smile on its face unlike those of the Germans or Russians.
I refer any interested parties to Churchill’s account of WWII beginning with post WWI in The Gathering Storm. He accounts that Hitler was blinded in WWI (poison gas begun by the French not the Germans) and I surmise psychologically, together with his unification with like-minded individuals his path altered considerably when he was refused entry to art college. I have seen his art – not bad and if he had only gone to art college…. But then who may have stepped into the teutonic void left by the Treaty of Versailles?

I hope this brief historical summary does not offend anyone. War is always cause and effect. Regime change is something the US, a very young country, likes to practice around the world. Consider that a large fledgling country that brings in limited knowledge from the Old World and very quickly Americanises it may not be the best candidate for ‘superpower’ either during the periods described nor after such as the present day.

Dear Ichak,
I agree with your thoughts,
I think that at least in the spiritual arena these personalities come on earth with a Mission ( the idea that overpowers them ) and they are chosen by Nature or destiny to fulfil their Mission on earth.This explains also the exceptional powers that are conferred to them and that they consciously or superconsciously use for the purpose, they are Nature’s agents, conduits of change for the good of all. I’m thinking to the great founders of religions or spiritual movements whose names everybody knows
and also of those who are less known, less exposed but equally great and humble.They live for the sake of others and totally sacrifice themselves. You and I had the privilege to come under the current of their immense love propelling them and all of us towards the real Goal of life.
Fausto Russo
SRCM Padova Italy

Another interesting perspective, yet one steeped in potential problems. In my nearly 50 years after undergraduate school in leadership positions in business, philanthropic, and industry organizations, I have found the most influential people are those who listen. Yes they have their vision; however, they are willing to embrace the views of others and willing to alter their view, should ideas spring forth that colors those views positively. Those who are channelled within the vision they posssess seem to be dangerous, as it has been shown, and proven, many times over that two or more minds can outperform one mind. And especially beware of the leader you define, Ichak, as such a leader, with a nefarious hidden agenda, is very dangerous to any unit of society, religion, and business.

Ichak, I am glad you raised the issue of Vision and its powerful impact on organizations and people. It underlines the importance of intrinsic rewards, in this case the (E) component.
It also involves how the intrinsic rewards attracts the needed organizational energy from individuals.

All of above impacting the adizes methodology
vision and mission steps.

It is probably a true from my exsperiance. The leader shell have an idea with is not realy personal but for the good of all, then is powerfoul. But I would disagree with formulation of slaves as moast probably they are strong personalitys who can stand fiers of unsucucess and so on.
From another hand everybody is a slave of the situation. As we are in there becouse we have made some decision before not becouse we have decided one minute ago. So everybody just have one freedom of
making decision, there and now.
So I would say the leaders are self made and not the slaves as they probably have the feeling that everything depends on their decisions there and now and they never forget higer goal for with they make their decisions.

I think you are perfectly right and I would like to ask for an additional reflection on it:
What does it make it to be a successful charisma? What’s the difference among a “foul”, a “prophet” or a “ipnotic leader”? Just an attractive way of doing, some luck or the right possession in the right time?

During a recent TopLeaf Programme that I’m facilitating here in England a member of the group suggested that there is a school of thought that charismatic leaders often display “psychopathic” traits as defined by the Hare PCL-R Checklist. She mentioned a book called The Psychopath Test By Ron Jonson (also the author of Men Who Stare at Goats).

I’m in the process of reading this book and although I wouldn’t claim that be a protagonist, of the concept it does raise some interesting ideas.

I had such an experience. I was working in a consulting company that was managed by a very strong charismatic leader. The person definitely was slave of one idea that was presented in the mission of organization, – “maximum good for society…” for that idea, he was sacrificing financial side of organisation, even personal salary. Everyone were following him sacrificing their personal time and salaries for clients… after 2 years of working I was forced out because I could not blind my mind for the idea and decisions they were making. I was a religious one and had my personal idea that was stronger for me than presented by this leader but anyway it was very difficult to leave this organization…
Your insight seems right to me… but the question is if charismatic leaders are transmitters than who are sources of Ideas ?

On some level I may agree, I can see clear examples of Stalin and Hitler, but what if the person has charisma and his idea is not ruining him, or his idea is beneficial in generally ? (is not crazy, or fanatic idea). Does all leader who are charismatic, they are slaves of their ideas ?
I’m not sure…

I agree with this and have a simple sample. When you have to let your people do anything they do not like (or actually do not understand), it is hard to push this as your own decision. When you show that you as a leader is driven by a big idea – then they can only argue with the idea itself, not with you, what is practically impossible.

The “ultimate charisma” is what god has in human lives. It comes from human’s belief that God represents the ultimate wisdom, the only one who understand the world order and always done what is “right”. That was demonstrated in many stories like the flood that eliminated the whole world except Noa and his selection of animals to survive.

The fundamental relationship is one way trust and respect (unlike yours MT&A). People believe that they should follow God even if God wants them to be martyrs (or to a lesser extent sacrifice their belonging or otherwise act in a way that they normally would not act.

The next level are cult leaders or other religious leaders (like the Mullahs in Iran) or the Hamas in Gaza. A prerequisite for these is that the people who follow them don’t think that they are “phony” or thieves. That is why Sadam Hussein (or Kaddafi) who were “voted” 99.9% by their people, could not get all the people behind them and the opposition eventually challenged their “charisma” or right to lead the people.

What made Hitler or Stalin “successful” was the fact that the Germans or The Russians believed that each was doing what was right and necessary for the people even when it was not easy to bless it. And probably by definition what was perceived as “right and necessary” was because no one had a better alternative that could work.

Hitler, for example came to power after a huge depression in Germany. He concluded that he could not revive the German economy by having every German growing vegetables in their backyard and dancing Polka at dark, and in order to create enough paying jobs he could build an industry of weapons and a huge army and take over the world in a fashion that all the occupants will be the servers to the German minority. In a way Hitler told the German people that he can make all the Aries elites that are fed by slaves.

The results did come. Germany in Hitler years built a huge industry and came out or recession. Many Germans found government jobs by being SS or soldiers and those who got to serve in the occupied territories did well.

Could he do it differently? (i.e. make all Germans work in peaceful environment and live well)? Maybe but it would be more difficult.

If you follow all charismatic leaders in the history most of them promised their people some kind of a golden cuff.

The reason why Obama (or his predecessors) are not charismatic is because no one believes that they do what is right, and the reason why each was elected is because of hopes that they might be.

Thanks a lot for your inside, it helps me find different approach in my situation with E2 course.
I think that source of psychological force is condition when person filling yourself right. Being right and filling right give to person unlimited force. Von Klauseviz says about the battle that “it is measuring procedure spiritual and physical force of two sides made by direct clash of it”. Spiritual is on the first place!
This or that idea just put or help the person to be or to fill them self right. All fanatics receive energy by the same “channels”. Being right and to have doubt and uncertainty normal rhythm of personal psychological evolution. To stuck in one of it is direct way to lost adequate to the changing world.What is adequateness is that different interesting question. In all cultures 100% adequateness belongs only to God and human being only aspire to Lord in it. In other words being adequate means being in harmony with God’s vibration in both aspects – changing yourself in changing environment. And we are back to the trinity idea, which makes strong millions…

I have noticed that real power inside society often requires the ability to let energy flow, to let things go.

The charismatic leader in your story, the one with a strong idea, is introducing new energy into society; it seems that more regular leaders rather slitghly correct flows and let them go, or accelerate.

One of the American political scientists says that the ability to speak in public ascribes to you (public think so) such qualities that even you do not posses.
So the source of “charisma” is a definite talent. For example, in sports it can be developed under the skillful guidance of coach and personal will power. Talent is the initial start, the external factor as a coach and inernal factor as the will power. Certainly the competition – an important factor in the development of charisma.
Sincerely yours,
Zabolotskii Sergeihttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001259738168

Respectful Brother! Thanks for sharing about the topic Charishma. It revealed a gr8 slogan of the leaders with which their engine is running with the FUEL – SLAVES OF SOMETHING “BIGGER” which adopts them to drive the world around them. The destiny of the people in that world are to be careful with their leader’s charishma, so that even the leader leaves the mortal body, all should stick not to their physical presence but to their ideology and principles which could drive themselves to the right destiny. I hope all those leaders who has written & writing their biographies and many more worth-ful topics do have their unique Ideology to make the Humanity get prospered with their ideologies and findings. It made me to re-think again, in Sahajmarg Master says to interiorize the eternal Master within self so that He becomes my eternal companion…every leader should remember this attitude…

It is wonderful to read the insights u have posted and makes it possible to think in a different way than what we are usually adhering too. A person who is Charismatic in this case referred to a leader whom many follow and is affectionately called Master is really the charisma of LOVE and only pure love! The vibration one feels the peace one gets to be in a company of such a Being is truly a divine experience.

Dear Dr Adizes,
Charisma and such terms go to explain a material level existence which we in this world are used to practice and express. This word loses its efficacy when we want to express something which is beyond the power of expression…rather it is something which one experiences and is not able to describe…words fall short of expression…and the beauty is there is no slavery …again slavery is a description of a material existence so that too loses its significance…the point is that this charismatic personality enters into you and you start becoming like him…you start seeing things from a different perspective as in the company of such personalities one stars evolving a a level where he finds himself on a different plane….I am not sure if you shall appreciate what I mean…however is is a fact that life becomes different in the company of such people and one feels life is worth living…

Charisma is not necessarily a good thing, as the Hitler and Stalin examples show.

A few Jungians have suggested that the theory “the charismatic leader is not a master. He or she is a slave of an idea, of an ideology, of a vision, that enslaves them and they are a carrier” is the correct one.

They suggest that such a phenomena is not about the leader, but about a collective project of a deep dysfunction among the followers. The group was broken and ready for the idea/behavior. Therefore somebody would arise that they could set up as a “charismatic” attractor to facilitate the behavior.

Now it appears that it is, in fact, much easier to catalyze bad behavior in this way than to mobilize positive behaviors. Hence Rush Limbaugh picks up more followers than Ron Paul. Rush catalyzed the negative. Ron is unable to catalyze the positive and neither is anybody else at this point. In a time of severe problems, anger is easier to mobilize than hope. Obama tried, but without a big list of specific actions individuals should be doing, there was not much to catalyze and nothing took off.

A softly watching Once consumed, the 358 is paradoxically a yielding watchfulness : the 47 mm of distance through the centre enables a herculean allotment from the 170 grams of ponderousness (that is agreeable to reason regarding how big the time-keeper, because of the titanium). Enhanced comfort is herculean, especially if it’s used up about the left hands since the diadem shelter doesn’t crowd about the wrist. Just the the third dimension can startle but people get accustomed to it quickly. The readability is intellectual in each and every site because of the abstinence from the dial and also to the hands which are generously covered with Super Luminova. Panerai Luminor Watches The bending course bezel is simple to dominion government. The clicks are straight and firm. It exudes compactness. Another strap, intellectual for the diving As some chivalric holder will maybe go dabbling some octopuses or sun rays with this particular nice toy, Panerai provides another special diving nylon physical thong on the clasp that can take in the lever principle from the crown safety. Well musing, it appears of the never-failing solidness and enables modifying the largeness of the thong to every millimeter, that is beneficial when putting on diving suit. Inference To bring into proximity a conclusion, this part doesn’t incompetent arguments. It’ll please both fire-brand fanatics that need to have an exclusive piece, too for the amateurs of utmost diving watches who definitely are lured by its impeccable production. replica watches deals http://i.gongweijie.com/read.php?tid=588208&displayMode=1

Services

Let’s connect

Please note:

The insights presented in these blogs are the personal insight of Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes and do not necessarily express the opinion or position of the Adizes Institute or its staff individually or as a group.

DISCLAIMER: The insights presented in these blogs are the personal insight of Dr. Ichak Kalderon Adizes and do not necessarily express the opinion or position of the Adizes Institute or its staff individually or as a group.